- Chief Compliance Officer and VP of Legal Affairs, Arrow Electronics
By 
Aly McDevitt2020-09-16T13:00:00
Two months after receiving the Department of Justice’s court order in June 2019, Carnival was able to tick off an important item from its to-do list: the hiring of a new chief ethics and compliance officer (CECO).
One of the court’s stipulations had been that Carnival appoint a new chief corporate compliance officer. Carnival did them one better: It found someone who could not only drive the movement of a centralized, enterprise-wide compliance department, but who also had big ideas about how to improve the ethical culture of the corporation. His name was Peter Anderson.
The emphasis on “ethics” in Anderson’s new job title, as well as in the corporate compliance department itself, was intentional. At least half of Carnival’s problems cited in court were ethics-based, according to Anderson. And if history repeating itself taught anything, it’s that the cause of Carnival’s problems may have been rooted in an ethical deficit all along. The solution had to be based on strengthening the corporate culture.
THIS IS MEMBERS-ONLY CONTENT. To continue reading, choose one of the options below.
News and analysis for the well-informed compliance or audit exec. Select an option and click continue.
Annual Membership $499 Value offer
Full price one year membership with auto-renewal.
Membership $599
One-year only, no auto-renewal.
Data governance has become a key concern for companies, especially when the EU AI Act and General Data Protection Regulation have put a premium on handling data responsibly and ensuring that artificial intelligence does not cause harm.
New York-based investment firm Drexel Hamilton will pay more than $1.1 million in penalties, with four current and former employees paying fines as well over committing hundreds of violations of rules regarding the sale of municipal bonds.
Companies spend huge sums on audit, risk management, and compliance to alert them about potential legal issues before they escalate into serious corporate governance failings. There’s only one problem, however–they often misread their own early warning signs or ignore them altogether.
Both JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank retained their respective Jeffrey Epstein relationships for too long. Yet, there is a case to be made for why exiting a high-risk relationship too soon can become an inverse form of recklessness.
Why did JPMorgan Chase retain Jeffrey Epstein for more than a dozen years? How did the relationship persist despite glaring red flags? The “why” is straightforward; the “how” is more complicated.
Jeffrey Epstein’s designation as a high-risk client should have subjected him to enhanced due diligence that never appeared to occur, most notably at Deutsche Bank. Instead, Epstein was allowed to continue his misconduct despite numerous red flags.
